Saturday, January 30, 2016

Commentary
By Frances Rice
Revelations about how Hillary Clinton violated our national security laws show that she is not qualified to be our next president. Uncovered also is how President Barack Obama lied when he said he did not know Clinton was using a private e-mail account to conduct government business.
A headline posted on the Drudge Report:
REVEALED: OBAMA EMAILED HILLARY 18 TIMES!
FLASHBACK: CLAIMED HE LEARNED FROM MEDIA
Here is a cartoon that explains why President Obama is providing cover for Hillary Clinton's illegality.

Below are articles on the subject of Clinton's national security violations.

Hillary's lame excuses for her e-mail misconduct are crumblingBy New York Post Editorial Board

The State Department just knocked a gaping hole in Hillary Clinton's happy e-mail fable.

State, the Associated Press reports, won't release 22 of Clinton's messages to the public because they contain too much most-secret information.

OK: Clinton's only promised that none of her e-mails were labeled "classified" — so she's technically not a blatant liar.

But US intelligence agencies have determined these message contain enough sensitive information that even blacking out whole passages isn't enough to make them safe for public view.

These e-mails are part of a trove of 7,000 pages — the last from Hillary's private server the State Department was poring through — that were to be released this month.

But State's not done: Last week, it declared that the winter storm would cause a delay — conveniently until after Monday's Iowa caucuses.

And this week, State added another delay: It got a late start in getting clearances from various intelligence agencies, so it now won't finish until Feb. 29 — after the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries.

By holding the "top secret" e-mails on her home-brew server, Clinton should be looking at 22 criminal counts. But her campaign is claiming she's just a victim — of bureaucratic over classification.

Funny: Hillary's staffers should have no way of knowing if that's so — unless she let them view the e-mails, which would be another crime.

At a minimum, there's this: In just 11 months, the Clinton camp's defense has gone from claiming "no classified" material was ever on her private server to insisting nothing "marked" classified was there to telling America that, well, it's all "over classified."

Not that Team Hillary is alone in lame-denial-land. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Friday that the FBI's investigation "does not seem to be . . . trending" in the direction of an indictment.

How the heck would he know? No one in the White House should be privy to what's going on in this Justice Department probe.

Unless, of course, information is being illegally leaked . . .

To sum up: Hillary Clinton's defense of her conduct is now reduced to technicalities; the State Department looks to be slow-walking the release of her e-mails with an eye on the campaign calendar — and the White House seems to know a bit too much about an unfolding investigation.
It's almost like a coordinated cover up.
_________________

State Department Confirms Hillary's Server Had Top Secret Documents
By John Hinderaker

The State Department is releasing the latest trove of Hillary Clinton emails today, and the Associated Press reports that seven email chains are being withheld entirely from production (as opposed to being produced in redacted form) because they are classified as Top Secret:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained closely guarded government secrets, censoring 22 emails with material requiring one of the highest levels of classification. …

Department officials also said the agency's Diplomatic Security and Intelligence and Research bureaus will investigate whether any of the information was classified at the time of transmission, going to the heart of one of Clinton's primary defenses of her email practices. …

But The Associated Press has learned seven email chains are being withheld in full from the Friday release because they contain information deemed to be "top secret." The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called "special access programs" — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

"The documents are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information," State Department spokesman John Kirby told the AP, describing the decision to withhold documents in full as "not unusual."

No, it isn't unusual. What is unusual is that these Top Secret documents came from Hillary Clinton's home brew server, contrary to federal law and State Department rules.

Hillary's only defense, as best as I can tell, is that none of the emails on her server were stamped "classified," "Top Secret," or whatever. This could be because those that were stamped were deleted before the emails were turned over to the State Department.

In any event, her defense is irrelevant: both the federal law and the State Department regulation relate to documents that are in fact classified, not just those that are so stamped. Federal employees can't circumvent the law by failing to stamp the documents they create or receive. And Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, was one of those specifically charged with knowledge of what documents should be, and are, classified.

PAUL adds: Hillary Clinton has argued for months that there is a dispute between the intelligence community and the State Department as to the sensitivity of documents on her server. The State Department's confirmation that documents on her server were "Top Secret" undercuts this defense.

The comment of State Department flack John Kirby that the documents "are being upgraded at the request of the intelligence community because they contain a category of top secret information" represents State throwing in the towel in this dispute, it seems to me, although Kirby does his best to make it seem like an accommodation, rather than a concession.

Friday, January 29, 2016

About 15 years ago, I said something nasty on CNN about Donald Trump's hair. I can't now remember the context, assuming there was one. In any case, Trump saw it and left a message the next day.

"It's true you have better hair than I do," Trump said matter-of-factly. "But I get more pussy than you do." Click.

At the time, I'd never met Trump and I remember feeling amused but also surprised he'd say something like that. Now the pattern seems entirely familiar. The message had all the hallmarks of a Trump attack: shocking, vulgar and indisputably true.

Not everyone finds it funny. On my street in Northwest Washington, D.C., there's never been anyone as unpopular as Trump. The Democrats assume he's a bigot, pandering to the morons out there in the great dark space between Georgetown and Brentwood. The Republicans (those relatively few who live here) fully agree with that assessment, and they hate him even more. They sense Trump is a threat to them personally, to their legitimacy and their livelihoods. Idi Amin would get a warmer reception in our dog park.

I understand it of course. And, except in those moments when the self-righteous silliness of rich people overwhelms me and I feel like moving to Maine, I can see their points, some of them anyway. Trump might not be my first choice for president. I'm not even convinced he really wants the job. He's smart enough to know it would be tough for him to govern.

But just because Trump is an imperfect candidate doesn't mean his candidacy can't be instructive. Trump could teach Republicans in Washington a lot if only they stopped posturing long enough to watch carefully. Here's some of what they might learn:

He Exists Because You Failed

American presidential elections usually amount to a series of overcorrections: Clinton begat Bush, who produced Obama, whose lax border policies fueled the rise of Trump. In the case of Trump, though, the GOP shares the blame, and not just because his fellow Republicans misdirected their ad buys or waited so long to criticize him. Trump is in part a reaction to the intellectual corruption of the Republican Party. That ought to be obvious to his critics, yet somehow it isn't.

Consider the conservative nonprofit establishment, which seems to employ most right-of-center adults in Washington. Over the past 40 years, how much donated money have all those think tanks and foundations consumed? Billions, certainly. (Someone better at math and less prone to melancholy should probably figure out the precise number.) Has America become more conservative over that same period? Come on. Most of that cash went to self-perpetuation: Salaries, bonuses, retirement funds, medical, dental, lunches, car services, leases on high-end office space, retreats in Mexico, more fundraising. Unless you were the direct beneficiary of any of that, you'd have to consider it wasted.

Pretty embarrassing. And yet they're not embarrassed. Many of those same overpaid, underperforming tax-exempt sinecure-holders are now demanding that Trump be stopped. Why? Because, as his critics have noted in a rising chorus of hysteria, Trump represents "an existential threat to conservatism."

Let that sink in. Conservative voters are being scolded for supporting a candidate they consider conservative because it would be bad for conservatism? And by the way, the people doing the scolding? They're the ones who've been advocating for open borders, and nation-building in countries whose populations hate us, and trade deals that eliminated jobs while enriching their donors, all while implicitly mocking the base for its worries about abortion and gay marriage and the pace of demographic change. Now they're telling their voters to shut up and obey, and if they don't, they're liberal.

It turns out the GOP wasn't simply out of touch with its voters; the party had no idea who its voters were or what they believed. For decades, party leaders and intellectuals imagined that most Republicans were broadly libertarian on economics and basically neoconservative on foreign policy. That may sound absurd now, after Trump has attacked nearly the entire Republican catechism (he savaged the Iraq War and hedge fund managers in the same debate) and been greatly rewarded for it, but that was the assumption the GOP brain trust operated under. They had no way of knowing otherwise. The only Republicans they talked to read the Wall Street Journal too.

On immigration policy, party elders were caught completely by surprise. Even canny operators like Ted Cruz didn't appreciate the depth of voter anger on the subject. And why would they? If you live in an affluent ZIP code, it's hard to see a downside to mass low-wage immigration. Your kids don't go to public school. You don't take the bus or use the emergency room for health care. No immigrant is competing for your job. (The day Hondurans start getting hired as green energy lobbyists is the day my neighbors become nativists.) Plus, you get cheap servants, and get to feel welcoming and virtuous while paying them less per hour than your kids make at a summer job on Nantucket. It's all good.

Apart from his line about Mexican rapists early in the campaign, Trump hasn't said anything especially shocking about immigration. Control the border, deport lawbreakers, try not to admit violent criminals - these are the ravings of a Nazi? This is the "ghost of George Wallace" that a Politico described last August? A lot of Republican leaders think so. No wonder their voters are rebelling.

Truth Is Not Only A Defense, It's Thrilling

When was the last time you stopped yourself from saying something you believed to be true for fear of being punished or criticized for saying it? If you live in America, it probably hasn't been long. That's not just a talking point about political correctness. It's the central problem with our national conversation, the main reason our debates are so stilted and useless. You can't fix a problem if you don't have the words to describe it. You can't even think about it clearly.

This depressing fact made Trump's political career. In a country where almost everyone in public life lies reflexively, it's thrilling to hear someone say what he really thinks, even if you believe he's wrong. It's especially exciting when you suspect he's right.

A temporary ban on Muslim immigration? That sounds a little extreme (meaning nobody else has said it recently in public). But is it? Millions of Muslims have moved to Western Europe over the past 50 years, and a sizable number of them still haven't assimilated. Instead, they remain hostile and sometimes dangerous to the cultures that welcomed them. By any measure, that experiment has failed. What's our strategy for not repeating it here, especially after San Bernardino-attacks that seemed to come out of nowhere? Invoke American exceptionalism and hope for the best? Before Trump, that was the plan.

Republican primary voters should be forgiven for wondering who exactly is on the reckless side of this debate. At the very least, Trump seems like he wants to protect the country.

Evangelicals understand this better than most. You read surveys that indicate the majority of Christian conservatives support Trump, and then you see the video: Trump on stage with pastors, looking pained as they pray over him, misidentifying key books in the New Testament, and in general doing a ludicrous imitation of a faithful Christian, the least holy roller ever. You wonder as you watch this: How could they be that dumb? He's so obviously faking it.

They know that already. I doubt there are many Christian voters who think Trump could recite the Nicene Creed, or even identify it. Evangelicals have given up trying to elect one of their own. What they're looking for is a bodyguard, someone to shield them from mounting (and real) threats to their freedom of speech and worship. Trump fits that role nicely, better in fact than many church-going Republicans. For eight years, there was a born-again in the White House. How'd that work out for Christians, here and in Iraq?

Thursday, January 28, 2016

CommentaryBy Frances Rice
As the below article written in 2012 by Bruce Bartlett who was senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House demonstrates, if we had held Ronald Reagan accountable for his prior liberal policies and actions when he was a Democrat and even after he became a Republican, he would not have been elected and subsequently re-elected to be president.
______________
Why Ronald Reagan Would Not Lead Today's GOP
By Bruce Bartlett
June 15, 2012

This week, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, heretofore a pillar of the Republican Party, both for his successful governing record and family history as son and brother of presidents, came in for criticism from members of his own party. Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist, who enforces party discipline on tax issues, attacked him for being a "yokel off the bus" who was echoing Democratic talking points.

Bush's sin? He suggested that the GOP had moved so far to the right and was so radically opposed to compromise of any kind that his father, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan couldn't be nominated by the party today. As Jeb Bush put it:

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad - they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party - and I don't - as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground."

Conservatives might have ignored Bush's apostasy except that this was the second time in two weeks that he had strayed from the reservation. On June 1, he told the House Budget Committee that he would be willing to accept a budget deal that cut spending $10 for every $1 of tax increase. The GOP party line is that taxes must not be increased by so much as a penny for any reason. Bush also denounced the so-called pledge against raising taxes that virtually every Republican has signed, noting that he never signed it.

Norquist said that Bush had insulted Mitt Romney because he has taken the pledge.

I think Jeb Bush has the better of this argument. It is indisputable that Reagan was vastly more moderate, at least in terms of how he actually governed, than today's GOP. At the risk of being pedantic, here is a partial list of Reagan's actions that would have him expelled for treason to conservative principles if he were running for president today.

* As a Hollywood actor, Reagan had been the head of a labor union, the Screen Actors Guild, and was proud of the higher pay and benefits he negotiated for his members. As president, he praised labor unions, saying, "Collective bargaining...has played a major role in America's economic miracle. Unions represent some of the freest institutions in this land. There are few finer examples of participatory democracy to be found anywhere."

* Franklin D. Roosevelt was Reagan's political hero and he voted for him for president 4 times. As president, he said, "F. D. R. was an American giant, a leader who shaped, inspired, and led our people through perilous times."

* As governor of California, Reagan signed into law the largest state tax increase in history up to that time. It increased California taxes by a third, including an increase in the top income tax rate. There were other tax increases as well, which raised the top rate to 11 percent from 7 percent when he took office, a 57 percent increase.

* Also as governor, Reagan signed into law California's first law permitting legal abortion - at the behest of his two most conservative advisers, Ed Meese and Lyn Nofziger. On other social issues as well, Gov. Reagan was far more progressive than his image. For example, he authorized conjugal visits for prisoners for the first time in the state and broadened environmental protection.

* In 1981, Reagan proposed a large tax cut. But when deficits became a problem, he supported tax increases and signed 11 of them into law. Among them was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982, the largest peacetime tax increase in American history.

* Reagan supported an increase in the capital gains tax to 28 percent from 20 percent as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

* In 1986, Reagan supported an immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. During the 1984 election, Reagan said, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and who have lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

* At the Reykjavik Summit with Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in 1986, Reagan, to the horror of his advisers, offered to abolish nuclear weapons. To their relief, Gorbachev declined the offer.

For these reasons, Barack Obama has often praised Reagan. Meanwhile, Republican leaders admit that Reagan would clearly be out of step with his party and would not be able to secure its presidential nomination today. Jeb Bush is not the only one.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee: "Ronald Reagan would have a very difficult, if not impossible time being nominated in this atmosphere of the Republican Party."

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA): Reagan "would never be elected today in my opinion."

Other Republicans note Reagan's commitment to compromise and working with Democrats to find solutions to pressing national problems.

Former chairman of the Republican National Committee Haley Barbour: "Let me make sure that one thing is clear about Ronald Reagan's Republican Party: Reagan did not demand or expect everyone to agree with him on every issue. He wasn't a purist. Some candidates are vying to be the most conservative candidate, and some voters are seeking purity in their choice. Well, in politics purity is a dead-dog loser. You need unity. And purity is the enemy of unity."

Former Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE): "Reagan wouldn't identify with this party. There's a streak of intolerance in the Republican Party today that scares people. Intolerance is a very dangerous thing in a society because it always leads to a tragic ending. Ronald Reagan was never driven by ideology. He was a conservative but he was a practical conservative. He wanted limited government but he used government and he used it many times. And he would work with the other party."

I worked for Ronald Reagan and believe he was a great president. But he was not a radical who made extravagant claims or sought to destroy government, as most Republicans appear willing to do today. He believed in conservative governance and getting things done, and if bending on principle was necessary, then so be it. I think Republicans would be better off emulating the real Ronald Reagan and less demanding rigid adherence to unachievable principles.

Bruce Bartlett's columns focus on the intersection of politics and economics. The author of seven books, he worked in government for many years and was senior policy analyst in the Reagan White House.

Wednesday, January 27, 2016

The National Black Republican Association's endorsement of Donald Trump for President of the United States has been very well received by other Republican black leaders across the country. The response has been overwhelming, with other leaders contacting us to add their support of the NBRA's endorsement of Mr. Trump. Highlighted below are the leaders who gave us their permission to release their names to the public. Our subsequent press releases during the general election will include the names of other leaders who endorse Mr. Trump when he has become our party’s presidential nominee, which we expect will be the decision of the majority of Republican Party primary voters. In our view, Mr. Trump’s nomination will be well-deserved, since we believe he is the only candidate who can both unify our party and attract new, independent and conservative black voters.

As
Chairman of the Texas Federation for Republican Outreach (TFRO), Bill Calhoun
has this to say regarding his endorsement of Donald Trump: "Our members
are dedicated to identifying and engaging independent, black voters withtwo issues that hit closest to home: jobs
and school choice. Despite the fact that they overwhelmingly vote for
Democrat candidates, the economic conditions for far too many African Americans
is marginal. The Republican Party has a positive message and we have
been talking to voters about it. We share information with them on
two critical issues – how to increase their income in this new economy that the
Democrats have created and the new strategies they must adopt to save and
accumulate wealth to pass on to their families. It’s time for Republican
candidates to help us by engaging black voters early in the primary season with
an economic message that puts the blame for these conditions where it belongs,
squarely in the hands of the Democrats and their public policy programs.
Donald Trump seems to be the only candidate for President willing to do this.”

Mason
Weaver’s impressive biography shows that he is changing the way people
think about how they do business; how they interact with their families,
friends and the world. He has been training, educating, teaching and reaching
thousands with his messages of hope for the future and empowering individuals
with the tools they need to become the driving forces for positive
change. Mr. Weaver stated that his YouTube endorsement of Donald Trump is based
on Mr. Trump’s business success and his focus on “making America great again.”
In a YouTube video, Mr.
Weaver explains the Trump phenomenon: “no matter who he attacks or who attacks
him, his polling numbers claim higher.”

Deborah
Travis Honeycutt is a Conservative Political Activist, Public Speaker and
family medicine physician. In 2004 Dr. Honeycutt was President of the Georgia
Academy of Family Physicians and in 2005 served as Chairman of the Board of
Directors. On the national level she has served on many committees as well as a
five-year appointment to the American Academy of Family Physicians’ Commission
on Education. She was twice the Minority Constituency Delegate and twice the
Georgia State Delegate to the American Academy of Family Physicians. While
providing her endorsement of Donald Trump as our next president, Dr. Honeycutt
stated: “Mr. Trump is the only candidate strong enough to withstand the media
backlash when he begins to repeal Obamacare and unravel what the Democrats have done to put our
national security and economy in jeopardy.”

Ken
Jordan and Brenda Battle Jordon are on the Genesee County Republican Executive
Committee in Michigan, as well as the Flint Right To Life Board. Brenda is the
former Director of Black Americans of Genesee County and is currently a member
of the Westwood Heights School Board. The Jordans said they are sadden by
how our school system is designed to benefit teachers’ unions – major donors to
the Democratic Party – at the expense of black children trapped in failing
urban schools. At the time the Jordans announced their endorsement of Donald
Trump, Brenda stated: “Mr. Trump isself-financed and will not be deterred by union money from returning
control over our schools back to parents and local communities, such as the
Westwood Heights School District in Flint, Michigan.”

Friday, January 22, 2016

We, the grassroots activists of the National Black Republican Association, are pleased to announce our endorsement of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States of America.
As citizens who happen to be black, we support Mr. Trump because he shares our values. We, like Mr. Trump, are fiscally conservative, steadfastly pro-life and believers in a small government that fosters freedom for individuals and businesses, so they can grow and become prosperous.
We are deeply concerned about illegal immigration, a major cause of high black unemployment, especially among black youth.
Black Americans across America are beginning to wake up and see clearly the reality of what is happening in black neighborhoods. Democrats have run black communities for the past 60 years and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned those communities into economic and social wastelands, witness Detroit, Baltimore and South Chicago.
We believe that Mr. Trump has demonstrated that he can push back against the mainstream media, end political correctness and free black communities from the destructive grip of socialist Democrats.
We urge our fellow black Americans to seize control over their own destiny and leverage their vote the way other groups do. It is way past time black Americans stop having their vote taken for granted by Democrats, hold politicians accountable for the content of their policies and not vote merely based on the label of their party.

Thursday, January 21, 2016

Back last summer, I wrote about the prospects for a Trump-Sanders 2016 race. Trump, of course, remains atop all of the polls for the GOP nomination. And now Bernie Sanders is crushing Hillary Clinton in CNN/WMUR's latest New Hampshire poll, 60% to 33%. That's right, Bernie has a 27-point lead among New Hampshire Democrats.

There's no question that Hillary is in real trouble. As Peter Wehner noted in Commentary, "Mrs. Clinton is now running as basically the third term of President Obama. She may tweak what he did here and there, but she is fully embracing Mr. Obama. In an election year in which anger and disgust at the political establishment and business as usual are dominant, and in which only a quarter of the American people believe the country is headed in the right direction, that is a dangerous strategy to adopt. In addition, there's a historical burden Mrs. Clinton faces: Since 1948, a political party has won three straight presidential elections only once, when George H.W. Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan, who was much more popular at the end of his second term than, in all likelihood, Mr. Obama will be."

With the Middle East on fire and the U.S. economy looking shaky, the "Obama's third term" strategy isn't looking very good. But Hillary was part of his administration, so what else can she do?

She also faces increasing legal problems. In particular, as the email story trickles out, it's now clear that she had beyond top secret material on her secret personal email server. As Politico reports: "In a copy of the Jan. 14 correspondence obtained by Politico, Intelligence Community Inspector General Charles McCullough III told both the Senate Intelligence and Senate Foreign Relations committees that intelligence agencies found messages relating to what are known as 'special access programs,' or SAP. That's an even more restricted subcategory of sensitive compartmented information, or SCI, which is top secret national security information derived from sensitive intelligence sources."

As intelligence experts like to point out, normal federal employees would face career-ending consequences, if not prison, for this sort of mishandling of classified information, which made it easy for foreign nations to learn extremely important secrets about U.S. intelligence - and U.S. methods of gathering intelligence. In Charles Krauthammer's view, what Hillary did is worse than what Edward Snowden did: "What people have to understand is that there is nothing higher, more secret than an SAP. And that, from some people I've talked to, this is worse than what Snowden did, because he didn't have access to SAP. And that, if this is compromised, this is so sensitive, that the reason - and the reason it is is that, as a result, if it's compromised, people die. It also means that operations that have been embedded for years and years get destroyed and cannot be reconstituted."

Hillary used this insecure private-server setup, it seems clear to me, because she wanted to be sure that emails she sent as secretary of State wouldn't be available under Freedom of Information Act requests that might hurt her politically. (Under the Freedom of Information Act, the government doesn't have to turn over emails that aren't in its physical possession. Former secretary of State Henry Kissinger gamed the system to keep his correspondence out of public hands, but not in a way that was deemed to have made secrets vulnerable to foreign espionage.)

Hillary, on the other hand, chose a method of protecting herself politically that exposed the nation to serious harm. Even if she escapes indictment (she's a Clinton, and hence presumptively above the law), this will hurt her, and help Bernie. And if she's indicted, well, Bernie's prospects are looking awfully good.

Meanwhile, no Republican candidate has yet managed to gain sufficient traction against Trump, who just got an endorsement from fellow anti-establishmentarian Sarah Palin. So will it be a Trump-Sanders race after all? It's looking likelier by the day.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor, is the author of The New School: How the Information Age Will Save American Education from Itself, and a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

The below articles make it quite clear that Hillary Clinton committed a felony and should be indicated. The most damning sentence is in the article "Inspector General: Clinton emails had intel from most secretive, classified programs" by Catherine Herridge and Pamela Browne that reads as follows.

"The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, "gross negligence" in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act."

If this early January development was a bombshell, today's revelation is a nuclear bombshell. Hillary Clinton's improper, unsecure email server appears to have endangered national security even more than previously thought -- and her excuses continue to melt away under intensifying scrutiny. Extremely serious findings from the intelligence community's Inspector General, reported exclusively by Fox News' Catherine Herridge:

Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the text of the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP). That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets...

Intelligence from a "special access program," or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as "top secret" - as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton's private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk.

Currently, some 1,340 emails designated "classified" have been found on Clinton's server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time. "There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material," a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. "It is the most sensitive of the sensitive."

The [SAP] programs are created when "the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional," and "the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved," it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling ... could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

She sure did.

No wonder officials inside the FBI are reportedly champing at the bit; for an indictment. Her conduct makes Petraeus' criminal but limited indiscretions look like child's play. In case you'd forgotten, Mrs. Clinton insisted last year that no classified material whatsoever had passed through her private server. That lie, one of several has now been disproven more than 1,300 times and today's news marks another devastating disclosure. America's top diplomat trafficked in the most sensitive US intelligence secrets that exist via her private server, which she'd been explicitly and urgently warned was uniquely vulnerable to foreign penetration.

This isn't about breaking some arcane rules or fudging some statements to deflect a political headache. This is about high-level state secrets being willfully and recklessly compromised by a powerful cabinet secretary in a hair-brained scheme to protect her political ambitions. And yes, it was willful. Her inner circle knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that her email arrangement was a serious problem.

The Congressional committees that received the IG's unclassified assessment should make the memo public. It seems as though Hillary Clinton is about to face more unwelcome questions.

Catherine Herridge reports the findings of the Intelligence Community Inspector General's summary of intelligence agencies' review to date of the information in Hillary Clinton's unsecured emails. Herridge notes that the IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and State Department inspector general. It's a shame the subject has made Bernie Sanders sick. It has considerably more merit than his usual socialist shtick. This seems like a big deal:

Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the text of the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails - including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.

Herridge injects this evocative remembrance of things past:

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling ... could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation."

Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.
Fox News is told that the recent IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.
Herridge turned to a former senior law enforcement source with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures for comments.

She concludes her report with his comment that the finding in the IG letter represents a potential violation of section 793 of the Espionage Act prohibiting "gross negligence" in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

The IG letter itself hasn't been made public yet, but it won't stay under wraps for long and at this point, it might make a difference. Might.

EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton's emails on her unsecured, homebrew server contained intelligence from the U.S. government's most secretive and highly classified programs, according to an unclassified letter from a top inspector general to senior lawmakers.

Fox News exclusively obtained the text of the unclassified letter, sent Jan. 14 from Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III. It laid out the findings of a recent comprehensive review by intelligence agencies that identified "several dozen" additional classified emails -- including specific intelligence known as "special access programs" (SAP).

That indicates a level of classification beyond even "top secret," the label previously given to two emails found on her server, and brings even more scrutiny to the presidential candidate's handling of the government's closely held secrets.

"To date, I have received two sworn declarations from one [intelligence community] element. These declarations cover several dozen emails containing classified information determined by the IC element to be at the confidential, secret, and top secret/sap levels," said the IG letter to lawmakers with oversight of the intelligence community and State Department. "According to the declarant, these documents contain information derived from classified IC element sources."

Intelligence from a "special access program," or SAP, is even more sensitive than that designated as "top secret" - as were two emails identified last summer in a random sample pulled from Clinton's private server she used as secretary of state. Access to a SAP is restricted to those with a "need-to-know" because exposure of the intelligence would likely reveal the source, putting a method of intelligence collection -- or a human asset -- at risk. Currently, some 1,340 emails designated "classified" have been found on Clinton's server, though the Democratic presidential candidate insists the information was not classified at the time.

"There is absolutely no way that one could not recognize SAP material," a former senior law enforcement with decades of experience investigating violations of SAP procedures told Fox News. "It is the most sensitive of the sensitive."

Executive Order 13526 -- called "Classified National Security Information" and signed Dec. 29, 2009 -- sets out the legal framework for establishing special access programs. The order says the programs can only be authorized by the president, "the Secretaries of State, Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the Director of National Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each."

The programs are created when "the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional," and "the number of persons who ordinarily will have access will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved," it states.

According to court documents, former CIA Director David Petraeus was prosecuted for sharing intelligence from special access programs with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell. At the heart of his prosecution was a non-disclosure agreement where Petraeus agreed to protect these closely held government programs, with the understanding "unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention or negligent handling ... could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." Clinton signed an identical non-disclosure agreement Jan. 22, 2009.

Fox News is told that the recent IG letter was sent to the leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees and leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and State Department inspector general.

Fox News has asked the committees to make the letter public because its findings are unclassified.

Representatives for the ODNI and intelligence community inspector general had no comment, but did not dispute the findings.

The intelligence community IG was responding in his message to a November letter from the Republican chairmen of the Senate intelligence and foreign relations committees that questioned the State Department email review process after it was wrongly reported the intelligence community was retreating from the "top secret" designation.

As Fox News first reported, those two emails were "top secret" when they hit the server, and it is now considered a settled matter.

The intelligence agencies now have their own reviewers embedded at the State Department as part of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process. The reviewers are identifying intelligence of a potentially classified nature, and referring it to the relevant intelligence agency for further review.

There is no formal appeals process for classification, and the agency that generates the intelligence has final say. The State Department only has control over the fraction of emails that pertain to their own intelligence.

While the State Department and Clinton campaign have said the emails in questions were "retroactively classified" or "upgraded" - to justify the more than 1,300 classified emails on her server - those terms are meaningless under federal law.

The former federal law enforcement official said the finding in the January IG letter represents a potential violation of USC 18 Section 793, "gross negligence" in the handling of secure information under the Espionage Act.

Tuesday, January 19, 2016

During a television interview, Margaret Sanger defended her battle for the right of birth control:

"We do not want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population."- Margaret Sanger

"Like the advocates of Birth Control, the Eugenists, for instance, are seeking to assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."1 These are the words of a woman who is heralded by women's rights groups worldwide. These are the words of Margaret Sanger, the mother of Planned Parenthood, whose beliefs were firmly rooted in the destructive pseudo-science of Negative Eugenics, a social movement that believed in selective breeding to better the human race by preventing the reproduction of the 'unfit'.2

Professionally, Sanger was a nurse who testified before the U.S. Senate in 1916 to call for the formation of the Population Congress that would seek to employ Negative Eugenics to separate humanity. Drastically limiting immigration of those considered 'unfit' was a mainstay of Sanger and her fellow eugenists. Their draconian proposals of forced segregation, for American citizens, were commonly held views among these 'progressives' who sought to achieve a superior and more intelligent race.

"...apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is already tainted...to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be...for the period of their entire lives."- Margaret Sanger, Birth Control Review, "Plan for Peace", April 1932, Vol 26, Number 4

Margaret Sanger, an American elite (whose second marriage to oil tycoon Noah Slee provided much of the financial backing for her cause) is the mother of Birth Control in America. Although a mother herself, she abandoned her own children for something she felt was more worthy of her time and passion. Some herald her as a hero that advanced women's rights to new heights. But it's important to understand the context in which she championed such 'rights'.

It was not out of benevolence but a deep-seated hatred of 'forced' motherhood, chastity, of the 'inferior classes', of religion (especially Catholicism), and racial elements that were a hindrance to the breeding of a 'race of thoroughbreds'.3 She wasn't interested in removing the cause of poverty, illiteracy, illegitimate births, or other social ills-just attacking the result...innocent life...which inherently had nothing to do with any of the conditions in which he or she was given life.

"Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease...Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks [of people] that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant."- Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, Chapter V, "Cruelty of Charity"

This is only a small fraction of the darker legacy associated with her name. It has been well- documented that Margaret Sanger's Birth Control Philosophy was firmly rooted in negative eugenics. She was the founder of the American Birth Control League, which in 1943, was renamed Planned Parenthood.4

She was funded by the same elite eugenists (i.e. John D. Rockefeller) who also, concurrently, funded Eugen Fischer and his work at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (responsible for the Nazi scientific theories of racial hygiene that led the slaughter of millions of Jews, gypsies, blacks and others deemed the inferior race).5

Many of whom Sanger associated with, professionally and editorially (writers/contributors to her Birth Control Review publication) are found, by scholars, to have greatly influenced Nazi racist ideology.

To carry out her population control plans, her organization, American Birth Control League that she founded in 1921, opened its facilities in predominantly black, immigrant and poor area of New York City. (This would be the template for the majority of Planned Parenthood clinics.) In 1939, with the help of wealthy Americans moguls (such as Clarence Gamble, of Procter & Gamble, and Mary Lasker) launched her racially motivated population control scheme that she called "Negro Project," recruiting black preachers to sermonize her population control message.

"Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defective." -Margaret Sanger, "Women and the New Race" Chapter 18

The aim of the Negro Project was to "severely reduce or eliminate" the reproduction of poorer blacks. As the American Birth Control League promoted this new program, Sanger and her fellow eugenists pushed a program of African-American led indoctrination, birth control policies and even sterilization throughout the United States. Many states adopted forced sterilization programs for the "feeble-minded", the incarcerated, and others deemed to be "unfit".

"We who advocate Birth Control, on the other hand, lay all our emphasis upon stopping not only the reproduction of the unfit but upon stopping all reproduction when there is not economic means of providing proper care..." -Margaret Sanger, "Birth Control and Racial Betterment" from Birth Control Review, Feb 1919, pg 11

When overt eugenics programs became outlawed, its goals and ideology remained thoroughly intact and devastatingly effective through the policy of Birth Control and the legalization of abortion. Eugenicists merely changed the language, speaking in euphemisms.

Today, abortion is a billion dollar industry that escapes any mainstream scrutiny as it pawns off birth control and the deliberate killing of unborn children as the false resolve to poverty. It exploits the mythology of global overpopulation the narcissism of economic convenience and the false liberty of total sexual liberation.
_________________

Monday, January 18, 2016

Daddy King, as Martin Luther King Jr.'s father was known, is the compelling subject of Bayer Mack's latest documentary, In the Hour of Chaos. The story sheds light on MLK Jr. but as Mack wrote in an email: "The story gives an extraordinary view of American history."

Who Was Daddy King?

Martin Luther King Sr. (1899-1984) was a Baptist pastor, leading the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta for 44 years. He was also an early leader of the civil rights movement. He served as the head of the Atlanta NAACP and the Civic and Political League, leading a fight for equality in teachers' salaries in Atlanta. He also was instrumental in helping end the Jim Crow laws in Georgia.

Martin Luther King Jr. joined him in the ministry, serving with his father at the Ebenezer Church. Daddy King was a strong influence on Martin and the entire congregation, teaching that they need not ever back down from what was right. Martin Jr. carried this message to a national and eventually an international audience.

The idea for a documentary about Daddy King was championed by executive producer Frances Presley Rice who thought King Sr.'s story held keys to a more complete understanding of not only Martin Luther King Jr., but also the civil rights movement. Documentary director and producer Bayer Mack joined her for what turned out to be a major undertaking.

In the documentary, audiences will meet Daddy King, a man of strength and compassion who lived through three heart-breaking tragedies in close succession. First there was the tragic assassination of his oldest son, Martin Jr. Then a little over a year later, his younger son, Alfred Daniel (A.D.), died in the family swimming pool in what is thought to have been an accidental drowning. Finally, a little less than five years later, his beloved wife, Alberta known as "Bunch," was killed by a gunman on a Sunday morning while she sat at her bench in front of the church organ, waiting for the service to begin.

Despite all the pain, Daddy King was able to "keep on keeping on," because he said, "The Lord's not done with me yet." And in the process, King was to continue to shape the country by lending his influence to those who would help African-Americans gain a rightful position in this country. Any politician who was seeking the African-American vote found his way to Daddy King at some point. Prominent among them was Georgia peanut farmer, Jimmy Carter, consulted Daddy King prior to his gubernatorial as well as his run for the presidency.

Daddy King Growing Up

Among the stories told in the documentary are a few from his formative years. Born Michael King in Stockbridge, Georgia, Daddy King's personality was largely shaped by his devout mother, Delia, who was married to a sharecropper. Delia believed in a bright future for her children. Though father, James, did not attend church with them, Delia took her children with her every week. King, Sr. reported that in church he found peace, and it kept him from being bitter about the injustices he was becoming aware of.

The documentary's most telling story of this early time period concerned a day when Delia sent her young son with a bucket of milk to share with a neighbor whose cow was no longer producing milk. On his way, the young boy was stopped by a white mill owner who ordered him to immediately go and fetch a pail of water for his men. Martin was frozen at the thought of not doing as his mother asked and tried to respectfully refuse. The mill owner grabbed him by the shirt. The bucket of milk tipped over, and as Martin bent to try to stop its fall, the man kicked and then punched him before Martin could scramble away.

When Martin got home, he was terrified about what his mother would say about his failure to deliver the milk. She asked his story, and to his surprise, she took him by the hand, and the two of them returned to the mill. Delia then confronted the mill owner. When he started to come at her yelling, she caught him off balance, which permitted her to push the man over and pummel his face until his nose spurted blood.

As she stepped back, she said: "You can kill me but if you put a hand on a child of mine, you'll have to answer for it." Taking Martin's hand again, Delia and Martin returned home.

Daddy King: Doing What Is Right

From his mother, Martin learned how important it was to stand up for what was right. When he went on to become a pastor with his father-in-law at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, it gave him a position from which he could reach out to those in power in order to make a difference. Men like Daddy King preceded the civil rights movement, and it was their work that permitted Martin Jr. to springboard to a national and international stage.

The documentary weaves strands of three stories into one. The underpinnings of the documentary are the events of the time -- everything from the Atlanta Riots and the disenfranchisement of blacks throughout the South to the era of prohibition and war time. Over this background, there are two more stories -- that of Daddy King and the story of Daddy's influence on Martin Jr.

Part One of In the Hour of Chaos can be viewed on Vimeo for $1.99, and it is currently available to subscribers of kweliTV, a documentary channel. It will also air on various local public television stations. There will be a screening in Cleveland on February 19, and Block Starz Music Television will be distributing the DVD via Amazon.

This is the second project on which Bayer Mack and Frances Presley Rice have coordinated. Previously, they produced a film of the first African-American film director, Oscar Micheaux, a contemporary of D.W. Griffith, and a very successful filmmaker in his own right: Oscar Micheaux: Czar of Black Hollywood.

"Today, as we reflect on the life of Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., let us also honor his legacy by working to ensure the promise
of equal opportunity for all Americans," said RNC Chairman Priebus.
"As an icon of courage, Dr. King fearlessly led the charge to create an
America distinguished by harmony and justice. Dr. King's call – for the nation
to live up to its ideals of liberty and justice for all – still resonates
today, and reminds us to complete the work yet to be done. We must keep
striving for a nation in which everyone can achieve their vision of the
American Dream."

"Dr. King's extraordinary sacrifices helped our
nation reach new levels of equality, but there is still more work to be
done," said Co-Chairman Day. "His call to action challenges us to
serve others and end injustice where we see it. In committing ourselves to
defending the principles of liberty, unity, and justice, we uphold Dr. King's
legacy."

Sunday, January 17, 2016

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015, two Muslim terrorists, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, walked into an afternoon Christmas party at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California, and opened fire on the assembled guests. Fourteen innocent people were killed and 22 injured. Two of the injured remain in critical condition.

Then, late in the evening of Thursday, January 7, 2016, Philadelphia police officer Jesse Hartnett was on routine patrol in his squad car at 60th & Spruce Streets in west Philadelphia. Without warning and without provocation, black Muslim Edward Archer stepped from the shadows, ran across the street, and fired 13 close-range shots at Officer Hartnett from a 9mm Glock pistol... a handgun stolen from a Philadelphia police officer in an October 2013 home burglary. Although Officer Hartnett was gravely wounded, he stepped from his vehicle and gave chase. The officer drew his sidearm and fired three shots at Archer, striking him in the buttocks. (For my Democrat readers, that means Officer Hartnett shot Archer in the ass.)

Captain James Clark, commander of the Philadelphia police homicide unit, said Archer told detectives, "I follow Allah. I pledge my allegiance to the Islamic State (ISIS). He told police investigators that he did what he did because police "defend laws that are contrary to Islam."

Moments later, newly-elected Democratic Mayor Jim Kenney stepped to the microphones and parroted to a stunned television audience what has become a standard Democrat Party talking point. He said, "In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teachings of Islam has anything to do with what you've seen on the screen. That is abhorrent. It's just terrible and it does not represent this religion in any way shape or form or any of its teachings. And this is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith."

In between those two atrocities, on December 17, 2015, seventy-three members of Congress, all Democrats, introduced House Resolution 569, subtitled, "Condemning violence, bigotry, and hateful rhetoric toward Muslims in the United States." The resolution calls upon local and federal law enforcement authorities to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who perpetrate "hate crimes" against-Muslims. The 73 co-sponsors of HR 569 are as follows:

Whereas the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes and rhetoric have faced physical, verbal, and emotional abuse because they were Muslims or believed to be Muslim;

Whereas the constitutional right to freedom of religious practice is a cherished United States value and violence or hate speech towards any United States community based on faith is in contravention of the nation's founding principles;

Whereas there are millions of Muslims in the United States, a community made up of many diverse beliefs and cultures, and both immigrants and native born citizens;

Whereas the Muslim community is recognized as having made innumerable contributions to the cultural and economic fabric and well-being of United States society;

Whereas hateful and intolerant acts against Muslims are contrary to the United States values of acceptance, welcoming, and fellowship with those of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

Whereas these acts affect not only the individual victims but also their families, communities, and the entire group whose faith or beliefs were the motivation for the act;

Whereas Muslim women who wear hijabs, headscarves, or other religious articles of clothing have been disproportionately targeted because of their religious clothing, articles, or observances, and

Whereas the rise of hateful and anti-Muslim speech, violence, and cultural ignorance plays into the false narrative spread by terrorist groups of Western hatred of Islam, and can encourage certain individuals to react in extreme and violent ways:

Now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the House of Representatives -

1. Expresses its condolences for the victims of anti-Muslim hate crimes;

2. Steadfastly confirms its dedication to the rights and dignity of all its citizens of all faiths, beliefs, and cultures;

3. Denounces in the strongest terms the increase of hate speech, intimidation, violence, vandalism, arson, and other hate crimes targeted against mosques, Muslims, or those perceived to be Muslim;

4. Recognizes that the United States Muslim community has made countless positive contributions to United States society;

5. Declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all United States citizens, including Muslims in the United States, should be protected and preserved;

6. Urges local and federal law enforcement authorities to work to prevent hate crimes, and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those perpetrators of hate crimes, and

7. Reaffirms the inalienable right of every citizen to live without fear and intimidation, and to practice their freedom of faith.

In other words, nearly four out of ten Democratic members of Congress feel as though Muslims are so terribly abused in our country... physically, verbally, and emotionally... that those of us who warn our countrymen of the danger posed by radical Islam must be deprived of our First Amendment rights. What HR 569 tells us is not that Democrats really care about Muslims, Mexicans, or any other ethnic group seeking refuge in America. They don't. What HR 569 tells us is that there are literally no limits to the pandering that Democrats will resort to in order to gain access to yet another voting constituency.

In building their national political coalition, Democrats have extended a welcoming embrace to unionized blue collar workers, teachers, and public employees; trial lawyers; radical feminists; radical environmentalists; gays; lesbians; and ethnic minorities... any identifiable special interest group seeking to gain special treatment or to avoid competition in our competitive enterprise system. The only two things that Democratic special interests share in common are their numbers and the huge sums of political money they bring to the table.

But now it appears they are throwing caution to the winds as Barack Obama, a man with strong Islamic sympathies, announces plans to import hundreds of thousands of future Democrat voters from the Muslim world. They appear to take no notice of the fact that Muslims are incapable of assimilating into western cultures. Instead, they come with sharp knives, suicide belts, and the announced intention of either killing all non-Muslims, or forcing us to convert to Islam.

Meanwhile, Democrats appear to be operating under the mistaken assumption that, when the time comes, the Muslim executioners will first separate Democrats from Republicans before proceeding with their genocidal cleansing. Although to do so is a pure death-wish, Democrats apparently see no downside whatsoever in snuggling up to Muslims who might be their friends and neighbors one day and their executioners the next... a stark reality that they will have to confront firsthand when Islamic terrorism comes to their neighborhood.

But let's not wait for the radical Islamists to deliver a moment of truth to our Democrat friends. Let's do our best to see to it that the 73 cosponsors of HR 569 are not returned to Congress in January 2017. Or better yet, let's provide each of them and their families with a year-long all-expense-paid junket to the Muslim country of their choice. They have a few things to learn.

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College. He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma's Green Country.

About This Blog & the National Black Republican Association

Lieutenant Colonel Frances Rice, United States Army, Retired is a native of Atlanta, Georgia and retired from the Army in 1984 after 20 years of active service. She received a Bachelor of Science degree from Drury College in 1973, a Masters of Business Administration from Golden Gate University in 1976, and a Juris Doctorate degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1977.
In 2005, she became a co-founder and Chairman of the National Black Republican Association, an organization that is committed to returning African Americans to their Republican Party roots.
Please, no donations.
Email contact: NationalBlackRepublican@Gmail.com